Message from discussion 'Ethical' SEO?

Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 24.70.230.47
From: "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
References: <cmdsa2$s2e$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <okclo05iha4ev0r722mor4480vvh1dsogt@4ax.com> <QiOid.131499$Pl.125213@pd7tw1no> <418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: 'Ethical' SEO?
Lines: 55
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <5KRid.132517$Pl.123075@pd7tw1no>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 20:52:17 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.70.95.207
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1099687937 24.70.95.207 (Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:52:17 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 13:52:17 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet


"C.W." <from_...@nomail.com> wrote in message 
news:418bb5ae.156556270@news.prodigy.net...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:24 GMT, "MM" <ngrea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If it was not reciprocated (equal or
>>better), then that is theft of PR and that too, is wrong.
>>
>>If they had permission to put the link there and replaced whatever PR they
>>took with reciprocal links, then it is just a subtle unobtrusive ad.
>
> Why does the PR have to reciprocated or replaced with equal or better?
> If they had permission - why add in "and replaced whatever PR they
> took"?
>
> What if the site, seeking an SEO, may not have that great of PR to
> begin with. Woudl it then be ok that the link was placed there and not
> viewed stealing of PR from a PR2 or PR3 site?
>
> PR is just a Google thing. And something that is becoming viewed as
> "not as highly" on ranking thoughts in Google as PR used to be viewed
> to being a year or two back.
>
> Sorry, I just view it [with it being placed in the footer] as a
> "subtle unobtrusive ad" thought. No different than when James [miss
> him] would sometimes help out folks trying to get indexed on Google by
> adding their links in the footer of his SEO site [even though they
> didn't hire him or pay him to do so]. No different to me than if it
> said "site designed by xxxx" or "graphics courtesy of xxxx".
>
> I think the only reason any thoughts of ethics is appearing is because
> of it pointing back to a SEO company's site. If it had been a link
> there to Joe Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site - I bet 98% of hte
> argumentations, against it being an SEO site link, wouldn't been
> shared.
>
> [Yes, I am playing devil's advocate]
>
> Carol

All I was trying to say that there are multiple issues.  It was SEO Dave's 
contention that it is wrong to steal PR whether it is just a Google thing or 
not.  If theft of PR is unethical or a "crime" then replacement of that 
would solve that issue leaving the link pointing to the SEO site in place. 
There wouldn't be an issue if the non-SEO site is better off.

The other issue is permission.  Whether it is SEO or website design or Joe 
Blow's Wholly Unrelated Topic Site, if there is no permission, then I think 
that's just wrong.

I don't understand why there would be a problem at all, if those two issues 
are resolved and that's the same for SEO as it is for anything else.